alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Howard J. BEARD, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7644.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 16, 2009.

Howard J. Beard, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Howard J. Beard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); *see United States v. Alvarez,*210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies).

The district court entered its order granting Beard’s motion to reduce his sen*832tence on April 21, 2008. The ten-day appeal period ordinarily would have expired on May 5, 2008. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(2) (providing “intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” are excluded when time period is less than eleven days). Beard did not file his motion for reconsideration until July 21, 2008.

“[T]he Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration and prescribe the time in which they must be filed.” *Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh,*755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir.1985). However, the Supreme Court has held that a motion for rehearing or reconsideration extends the time for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case if the motion is filed before the order sought to be reconsidered becomes final. *See United States v. Ibarra,*502 U.S. 1, 4 n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 4, 116 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (holding that would-be appellants who file a timely motion for reconsideration from a criminal judgment are entitled to a full time period for noticing the appeal after the motion for reconsideration has been decided); *United States v. Dieter,*429 U.S. 6, 7-8, 97 S.Ct. 18, 50 L.Ed.2d 8 (1976) (same); *United States v. Christy,*3 F.3d 765, 767 n. 1 (4th Cir.1993) (same). Because Beard did not timely file the motion to reconsider, the district court should have denied the motion as untimely. We therefore affirm the denial of the motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the motion was untimely filed.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Mary C. Guzman, Chief Financial Officer of Rose Hills Company (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (a) |  | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) |  | the information contained in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, which this certification accompanies, fairly presents, in
all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    MARY C.
GUZMAN  
|                       
|Mary C. Guzman         
|Chief Financial Officer



August 10, 2003



The foregoing certification accompanied the Form 10-Q filing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350. It is being reproduced herein for information only. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019305EN.01002801.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/28

---

Appeal brought on 17 July 2019 by ABLV Bank AS against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 May 2019 in Case T-281/18: ABLV Bank v European Central Bank (ECB)

(Case C-551/19 P)

(2019/C 305/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ABLV Bank AS (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 in case T-281/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 in case T-281/18;

| — | declare that the application for annulment is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the application for annulment is admissible;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and

| — | order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its appeal:

| 1) | That the General Court erred in law and violated Art. 263 TFEU by failing to base its order on the decision which the ECB actually adopted. |
| --- | --- |

1)

That the General Court erred in law and violated Art. 263 TFEU by failing to base its order on the decision which the ECB actually adopted.

| 2) | That the order under appeal is based on an incorrect interpretation of Art. 18(1) SRMR (1). |
| --- | --- |

2)

That the order under appeal is based on an incorrect interpretation of Art. 18(1) SRMR (1).

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 225, p. 1).

---
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 35 

To establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies 

for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of 

the United States on January 21, 2013. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2012 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. ALEXANDER) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 

Ceremonies for the inauguration of the President-elect 

and Vice President-elect of the United States on January 

21, 2013. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE. 

4 There is established a Joint Congressional Committee 

5 on Inaugural Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as 

6 the ‘‘joint committee’’) consisting of 3 Senators and 3 

7 Members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed 

8 by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 35 ATS 

1 House of Representatives, respectively. The joint com2 mittee is authorized to make the necessary arrangements 

3 for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice Presi4 dent-elect of the United States on January 21, 2013. 

5 SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 

6 The joint committee— 

7 (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equip8 ment and the services of appropriate personnel of 

9 departments and agencies of the Federal Govern10 ment, under arrangements between the joint com11 mittee and the heads of those departments and 

12 agencies, in connection with the inaugural pro13 ceedings and ceremonies; and 

14 (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods 

15 and services to carry out its responsibilities. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2270
MURAT OZCAN, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-155-968) Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Murat Ozcan, Petitioner Pro Se. Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Murat Ozcan, a native and citizen of Turkey, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of his third motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and find that the denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (4)(ii) (2005); Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
RESTATED PRIOR PERIOD FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK
SPLIT EFFECTED MARCH 10, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,954
<SECURITIES>                                   121,544
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,117
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,086
<PP&E>                                          38,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          183,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            33
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,497
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,132
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,202
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,404
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,798
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,798
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00140-CV

Brandon D. Hicks, Appellant

v.

Latisha D. Hicks, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 19-1102-FC4, THE HONORABLE JOHN B. MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Brandon D. Hicks, appearing pro se,1 wishes to appeal what he describes as “the 

order awarding title to the property located at 2602 Glen Field Drive, Cedar Park, TX in 

Williamson County.” Although it is not clear from the notice of appeal or the record, his 

description appears to refer to a temporary order rendered in the course of the divorce proceeding 

below. Yet a temporary order, “except an order appointing a receiver, is not subject to 

interlocutory appeal.” See Tex. Fam. Code § 6.507.

On April 15, 2020, this Court sent Hicks a letter asking him to identify an 

appealable judgment or order over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction. The letter 

indicated that failure to do so might result in dismissal of the appeal. Hicks’s response was due 

1 We hold pro se litigants to the same standard as those represented by counsel. United 

Copper Indus., Inc. v. Grissom, 17 S.W.3d 797, 805 n.6 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. dism’d).
2

April 27, 2020, but Hicks did not file a response. Accordingly, because Hicks has not identified 

an appealable judgment or order, we dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 5, 2020
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 817 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 817

To provide for the inclusion of independent regulatory agencies in the 
application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 
                               et seq.).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2011

  Mr. Portman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the inclusion of independent regulatory agencies in the 
application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 
                               et seq.).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF APPLICATION TO INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 421(1) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(1)) is amended by 
striking ``, but does not include independent regulatory agencies''.
    (b) Exemption for Monetary Policy.--The Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
section 5 the following:

``SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.

    ``Nothing in title II, III, or IV shall apply to rules that concern 
monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of 
the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Antonio L. McGEE, also known as Tonio, Appellant.

No. 05-4170.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 20, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 9, 2009.

Travis D. Poindexter, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

*339David DeTar Newbert, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Antonio McGee appealed the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We affirmed. *United States v. McGee,*211 Fed.Appx. 538 (8th Cir.2007). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of this Court, and remanded for further consideration in light of *Kimbrough v. United States,*552 U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). *McGee v. United States,*— U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 1062, 169 L.Ed.2d 802 (2008) .

Because McGee clearly asked for a below-Guidelines sentence based upon the crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity and his request was denied because the district court believed it had no authority to so do, we hereby reverse the district court and remand for resentencing in light of *Kimbrough.*

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Syed Zaidi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.





Date: September 14, 2010





By:

/s/ Syed ZaidiName:

SYED ZAIDITitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Minera Andes Inc. (the Corporation), on Form 10-Q for the six month period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Allen V. Ambrose, President of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                   |  |     |  |                      |  |                 
|--------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | ----------------
|                      |  | MINERA ANDES INC.
|                      |  |                   | 
|Date: August 18, 2006 |  |                   |  | By: |  | /s/ Allen V. Ambrose
|                      |  |                   |  |     |  |                      |  | Allen V. Ambrose
|                      |  |                   |  |     |  |                      |  | President
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of CEO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AMCORE Financial, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kenneth E. Edge, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|/s/    KENNETH E. EDGE                 
|                                       
|Kenneth E. Edge Chief Executive Officer
|May 7, 2004                            



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NEOMAGIC
CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH
PERIOD ENDING MAY 2, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1999
<CASH>                                          35,100
<SECURITIES>                                    42,298
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,512
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,058
<PP&E>                                          19,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,156
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,375
<SALES>                                         72,397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,397
<CGS>                                           45,609
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,367<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,953
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,692<F2>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,261
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES ONE-TIME CHARGE OF $5.3 MILLION FOR IN-PROCESS RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
<F2>BASED ON PRE-TAX INCOME EXCLUDING ONE-TIME CHARGES
</FN>


</TABLE>